Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Delisted Overnight: A Cautionary Tale for Indie iOS Developers

russ.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 127 posts

Re: Delisted Overnight: A Cautionary Tale for Indie iOS Developers

#41

Post by jwr »

jsty wrote: post #18
jwr wrote: post #12

This is why I think every app should be sold in a subscription model. The current users of this app are very happy with it, and yet they will suffer when the developer can't make enough new sales. It's like a Ponzi scheme: everything falls down if you can't enroll enough new users. That's not sustainable.

For apps you install on your own machine, I think the JetBrains perpetual license model is probably my favourite so far. After a certain period you can stop paying the subscription and keep using the old version. But if you want to keep up to date with features and bug fixes, you keep paying the subscription. It just seems to align incentives on both sides quite well.

I don't think "keep using the old version" is a solution. We should accept the truth, which is that in today's computing world you can't "keep using the old version", because you will want the bug fixes, the security fixes, and you will need the software to be updated to newer OS versions.

Re: Delisted Overnight: A Cautionary Tale for Indie iOS Developers

#43

Post by danial »

If you're reading this, I'm so sorry this happened to you, Russ.

The problem is worse than being de-ranked for your keywords. The search is downright broken. Searching for 'predictive weight loss tracker', 'predictive weight tracker', anything with 'tracker' yields no results on my phone. Removing 'tracker' and only searching for 'Predictive Weight' or 'Predictive Weight Loss' gives me only one result: Happy Scale.

It almost seems like they're filtering your app on the 'tracker' keyword. That's not fair!

Re: Delisted Overnight: A Cautionary Tale for Indie iOS Developers

#44

Post by walterbell »

xwdv wrote: post #36
benmdi wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just another way of saying "Apple doesn't give a f*ck about indie developers." Might be true, but it's still shitty.

Apple is not a marketing service.

Other than Facebook and Google, what are the preferred marketing services for iOS indie developers in 2019? Is it mostly domain/niche specific, or are there horizontal promotion services for apps?

If Apple's 30% fee charged to developers does not include any marketing services, what additional percentage should be budgeted for the companies that are promoting apps? 10%? 20%?

Re: Delisted Overnight: A Cautionary Tale for Indie iOS Developers

#46

Post by coldtea »

benmdi wrote: post #17
mrkstu wrote: post #14

I think he already has his answer- Apple doesn't guarantee search placement- though it is odd that he'd fall all the way off altogether. If you're relying on Apple (or Google) to feature you in their search results, you're already at their whim with no recourse.

That's a BS answer, and if it's the one Apple wants to give, then they should not be surprised when they 1) are seen by devs as a unattractive platform to build a business on 2) Get treated like a monopolist in courts.

Well,

1) they're neither "seen by devs as a unattractive platform to build a business on" (they have millions of apps, and hundreds of thousands of devs contributing, including all major software companies, from MS to Adobe, plus they have earned devs by far the most money of off any app store, in fact an unbelievable amount ($120 billion in developer revenue [1])

2) Nor are they treated like a monopolist in courts. Being the only app store for your own platform is not a monopoly. Being the only platform is a monopoly, and iOS is not only not "the only platform", but is a minority platform (more people use Android). Not to mention that even being a monopoly (which Apple is far from one, and wont ever be due to price) is not illegal: exploiting that monopoly (like Microsoft of yore did) is.

[1] https://mobilesyrup.com/2019/01/28/apple-app-store-120-billi...

Re: Delisted Overnight: A Cautionary Tale for Indie iOS Developers

#47

Post by britch »

groovybits wrote: post #25
benmdi wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a BS answer, and if it's the one Apple wants to give, then they should not be surprised when they 1) are seen by devs as a unattractive platform to build a business on 2) Get treated like a monopolist in courts.

I'm not sure I understand this reasoning. Why should Apple or Google be responsible for promoting your app? If I walk into a supermarket and I don't see the item I wanted on their front feature displays (meaning I need to walk down the isle to find it), does that mean the supermarket is monopolistic? Does that mean the item vendor should stop selling their product in that supermarket?

I like this analogy, but there are some pretty big differences between a supermarket and the app store.

The "aisle" on the app store goes on for miles. Sure the product may be there, but if it's a 5-10 minute walk down the aisle to get to it, I don't think may people would look that far. The item is technically there, but it's not exactly accessible.

In this example there's also only one supermarket, the Apple app store. With grocery stores your product may not be in an advantageous place at Store A, but it could be right at eye level in Store B, C, or D. With the Apple store, if you're not featured there, you're not featured anywhere.

I agree the developer should not be surprised by this. I don't think Apple is acting badly. These are just consequences of having many apps and only one app store.

Re: Delisted Overnight: A Cautionary Tale for Indie iOS Developers

#48

Post by [deleted] »

jsty wrote: post #18
jwr wrote: post #12

This is why I think every app should be sold in a subscription model. The current users of this app are very happy with it, and yet they will suffer when the developer can't make enough new sales. It's like a Ponzi scheme: everything falls down if you can't enroll enough new users. That's not sustainable.

For apps you install on your own machine, I think the JetBrains perpetual license model is probably my favourite so far. After a certain period you can stop paying the subscription and keep using the old version. But if you want to keep up to date with features and bug fixes, you keep paying the subscription. It just seems to align incentives on both sides quite well.

[deleted]

Re: Delisted Overnight: A Cautionary Tale for Indie iOS Developers

#50

Post by groovybits »

britch wrote: post #47
groovybits wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand this reasoning. Why should Apple or Google be responsible for promoting your app? If I walk into a supermarket and I don't see the item I wanted on their front feature displays (meaning I need to walk down the isle to find it), does that mean the supermarket is monopolistic? Does that mean the item vendor should stop selling their product in that supermarket?

I like this analogy, but there are some pretty big differences between a supermarket and the app store. The "aisle" on the app store goes on for miles. Sure the product may be there, but if it's a 5-10 minute walk down the aisle to get to it, I don't think may people would look that far. The item is technically there, but it's not exactly accessible. In this example there's also only one supermarket, the Apple app st…

> In this example there's also only one supermarket, the Apple app store.

My argument was simply about who is responsible for promoting the app. But your point is correct.

My response to this: Would having multiple app stores available on iOS really solve the issue that OP is experiencing?

If iOS suddenly allowed a user to download apps from multiple different stores, would the number of app downloads for OP increase? How will I know which app store to find OP's app in? From a pure promotional aspect, I would have to know to look for OP's app, which does not sound like it would help OP in this case.

Post reply on HN